A Buccal Swab Search May Require A Search Warrant
Under both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, we have the right to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures.” But what does it mean to be “secure,” and where exactly is the line drawn for what constitutes an “unreasonable search and seizure?” Well, the Minnesota Court of Appeals answered this question when they decided whether a buccal swab search of an individual’s mouth for their saliva required a search warrant. State v. Steeprock, A23-0875.
A Guide to Search and Seizure Laws
Before we dive into that case and its holding, it is essential to understand the general framework of searches and seizures. As our last blog demonstrates, the Fourth Amendment law is ever-evolving, and this case only furthers this point. For a police officer to conduct a search, they must either have a valid warrant or fall within an established exception to the warrant requirement. A warrant must be supported by probable cause, which means having a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the location to be searched. Simply put, without a warrant or an applicable exception, a search is unconstitutional.
Now, in State v. Steeprock, law enforcement conducted a buccal swab search by obtaining two saliva samples from the defendant. The first saliva sample was obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant. The second saliva sample, however, was obtained without a valid warrant. The court had to consider first, whether the act of the buccal swab for the defendant’s saliva sample constituted a search, and second, whether this search violated the defendant’s constitutional rights.
The State argued that under Minnesota law, a buccal swab could be obtained without a search warrant if it would “materially aid in determining whether the defendant committed the offense charged,” citing to Minn. R. Crim. Pro. 9.02, subd. 2(1)(f). The defendant, however, argued that the State disregarded essential constitutional safeguards, asserting that its argument “should not be used as a workaround for defective search warrants.”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that obtaining the Defendant’s DNA sample without a valid search warrant violated his constitutional rights. The reason was because, while Minnesota allows for samples to be taken without search warrants, the saliva sample was not being used for identification purposes per the procedural rules, and instead, for the basis of the State’s forensic testimony. As a result, the court decided that the DNA evidence obtained should have been excluded from trial, and the case was remanded for a new trial.
The decision in State v. Steeprock is significant because it further strengthens constitutional protections to the warrant requirement and pushes back on unreasonable searches. This ruling not only affirms the necessity of obtaining a valid search warrant before collecting personal information, like DNA, but also emphasizes that exceptions to the warrant requirement must be applied narrowly and cannot be used as a blanket justification for bypassing constitutional limitations. And even criminal procedural rules that otherwise permit searches, they, too, cannot be a workaround to heightened constitutional protections.
Contact A Criminal Defense Attorney
If you have been subjected to a search with or without a search warrant, it is crucial to seek legal representation from a Minnesota criminal defense attorney who is well-versed in the nuances of search warrants and constitutional law. The North Star team is equipped to fight for your rights and guide you through these challenging times.